|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||1201 To 1800|
|Locale Reference||airport : mia.airport|
|Altitude||agl single value : 0|
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||B727 Undifferentiated or Other Model|
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
|Anomaly||aircraft equipment problem : less severe|
maintenance problem : improper documentation
maintenance problem : non compliance with mel
non adherence : company policies
non adherence : far
non adherence : published procedure
other anomaly other
|Resolutory Action||flight crew : overcame equipment problem|
|Problem Areas||Flight Crew Human Performance|
Maintenance Human Performance
Flight plan contained an MEL item titled 'ground-cockpit/cockpit-ground interphone inoperative' MEL. Upon arrival at the aircraft, the ground crew informed me that the interphone did not work. I tested the interphone and found that the cockpit-ground worked, but ground-cockpit did not. We briefed a hand signal departure. I glanced through my MEL and found the subsection for the noted discrepancy, and confirmed that it was good to go. So off we went. The aircraft overnighted with us and upon inspection of the flight plan for our return to mia, I found the same MEL item, but the description was changed and read 'cockpit-cabin/cabin-cockpit/cabin-cabin interphone inoperative.' I knew that someone had screwed up, because the discrepancy was proper the day before, and I had checked it the day before and there was nothing wrong with the cockpit-cabin PA system. When I looked at the MEL in order to straighten out the offending party, I found it was me, because the MEL was the right number for the cockpit-cabin interphone and I had not caught that mistake the day before. The MEL number should have been a different number and I had missed that. I talked with dispatch and technician, did a pen/ink change to the flight plan noting the proper discrepancy and MEL number and maintenance corrected the logbook sheet and placard. The typical rush job was underway trying to get out on time, and I think the big factor in my sloppy research was that I had already confirmed the problem to be that which the wording on the flight plan had indicated, so I lost interest in the MEL number when I saw the corresponding MEL subparagraph. I feel good that we took off without an equipment problem, bad that the logbook and paperwork were not completely accurate as to the proper MEL for the situation.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: B727 PIC MISLABELS THE MEL ITEM AND FINDS THAT THE NEXT DAY THE ACFT IS NOT LEGAL FOR DEP WITH MEL READING THAT HE SIGNED.
Narrative: FLT PLAN CONTAINED AN MEL ITEM TITLED 'GND-COCKPIT/COCKPIT-GND INTERPHONE INOP' MEL. UPON ARR AT THE ACFT, THE GND CREW INFORMED ME THAT THE INTERPHONE DID NOT WORK. I TESTED THE INTERPHONE AND FOUND THAT THE COCKPIT-GND WORKED, BUT GND-COCKPIT DID NOT. WE BRIEFED A HAND SIGNAL DEP. I GLANCED THROUGH MY MEL AND FOUND THE SUBSECTION FOR THE NOTED DISCREPANCY, AND CONFIRMED THAT IT WAS GOOD TO GO. SO OFF WE WENT. THE ACFT OVERNIGHTED WITH US AND UPON INSPECTION OF THE FLT PLAN FOR OUR RETURN TO MIA, I FOUND THE SAME MEL ITEM, BUT THE DESCRIPTION WAS CHANGED AND READ 'COCKPIT-CABIN/CABIN-COCKPIT/CABIN-CABIN INTERPHONE INOP.' I KNEW THAT SOMEONE HAD SCREWED UP, BECAUSE THE DISCREPANCY WAS PROPER THE DAY BEFORE, AND I HAD CHKED IT THE DAY BEFORE AND THERE WAS NOTHING WRONG WITH THE COCKPIT-CABIN PA SYS. WHEN I LOOKED AT THE MEL IN ORDER TO STRAIGHTEN OUT THE OFFENDING PARTY, I FOUND IT WAS ME, BECAUSE THE MEL WAS THE RIGHT NUMBER FOR THE COCKPIT-CABIN INTERPHONE AND I HAD NOT CAUGHT THAT MISTAKE THE DAY BEFORE. THE MEL NUMBER SHOULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT NUMBER AND I HAD MISSED THAT. I TALKED WITH DISPATCH AND TECHNICIAN, DID A PEN/INK CHANGE TO THE FLT PLAN NOTING THE PROPER DISCREPANCY AND MEL NUMBER AND MAINT CORRECTED THE LOGBOOK SHEET AND PLACARD. THE TYPICAL RUSH JOB WAS UNDERWAY TRYING TO GET OUT ON TIME, AND I THINK THE BIG FACTOR IN MY SLOPPY RESEARCH WAS THAT I HAD ALREADY CONFIRMED THE PROB TO BE THAT WHICH THE WORDING ON THE FLT PLAN HAD INDICATED, SO I LOST INTEREST IN THE MEL NUMBER WHEN I SAW THE CORRESPONDING MEL SUBPARAGRAPH. I FEEL GOOD THAT WE TOOK OFF WITHOUT AN EQUIP PROB, BAD THAT THE LOGBOOK AND PAPERWORK WERE NOT COMPLETELY ACCURATE AS TO THE PROPER MEL FOR THE SIT.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.